Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC for offences including dacoity and Arms Act charges. Court noted three similar antecedents, recovery of melted gold and other material, CDRs and CCTV footage showing complicity, and rejected the bail application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
30-BA-960-24.DOC
Sayali Upasani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 960 OF 2024
Satish @ Sandip Sakharam Pohalkar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Satyavarat Joshi i/b Mr. Ashish Vernekar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for State-Respondent.
CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED:- 26th AUGUST, 2024
PC:-
1/2
30-BA-960-24.DOC
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail under Section 439 CrPC should be granted to the applicant in a dacoity case despite charge-sheet filing, given antecedents and incriminating material.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Satish @ Sandip Sakharam Pohalkar
The State of Maharashtra
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
